__________________________________________________________________________________
editorial Enhancement Request Number 1
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 1)
[l.johnson@computer.org_969282990.22532_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
__________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
__________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
There needs to be some sort of identifier of the section on each page.
It is very difficult to find a section you need.
Action:
If you plan to continue having multiple sections 1, 2 , 3, etc, then you
should use the following format: IV 3.2.1 2987 means book 4, section
3.2.1, page 2987
Other formats would be acceptable, as long as I know what section I am
in.
____________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 2
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 2)
[David.Butenhof@compaq.com_969384163.6106_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have reviewed the objections which I have submitted to Open Group in
aardvark format and fully support those objections. My IEEE ballot
objections can be resolved by fully resolving those objections.
Action:
Resolve the Austin group aardvark objections I have submitted, which are
identifiable by the tag pattern "drb.xshd4.*" and "drb-xbdd4-*".
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 3
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 3)
[prindle@ieee.org_967665364.2684_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have reviewed the objections which I have submitted to Open Group in
aardvark format and fully support those objections. My IEEE ballot
objections can be resolved by fully resolving those objections.
Action:
For each objection submitted to the Open Group in aardvark format,
perform the action designated in the "Action:" aardvark field.
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 4
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 4)
[beh@peren.com_969463247.18079_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
The final version of this document should correspond to that being
produced by the Austin Group.
Action:
see comment
_______________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 5
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 5)
[andrewr@eng.sun.com_969551206.29507_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have reviewed the objections that Don Cragun has submitted tothe
Austin Group in aardvark format and fully support those objections. My
IEEE ballot objection can be resolved by fully resolving Don's
objections.
Action:
For each objection Don submitted to the Austin Group inaardvark format,
perform the action designated in the "Action:" aardvark field.
_________________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 6
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 18)
[ajosey@opengroup.org_969889560.24660_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I recommend that the final approved draft be the same at the produced by
the Austin Group
Action:
As above, synchronize the final draft.
________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 7
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 7)
[J.Isaak@Computer.org_969486364.22831_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
An essential aspect of POSIX/UNIX systems is support for multiple user
ID's. I belive we should add two requirements and one suggestion to
address this in a way that is consistent with the work so far.
1) require support for at least xx user id's (I'd go for 16k, but
willing to go with any number greater than 16)
2) require that vendors document the privilaged administrative function
required to set user ID at both the API and shell level.
3) Recommend that user id's support a full 64 bit field (This allows
large organizations to have unique user id's over many systems with out
the need for re-use ... consider a college with 20K new students each
year....)
Action:
IF there is general acceptance for this approach we can add additional
wording (I belive that the functionallity defined is already present in
most if not all vendors systems, including documentation, so this should
not require an changes in vendor systems or vendor documentation.)
____________________________________________________________________________________
editorial Enhancement Request Number 8
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 20)
[chammons@mindspring.com_969886491.24250_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have been balloting for some time and this is the first email based
exercise. I have enjoyed being in the middle of all the comments and
discussions. In spite of the volume of email, I believe it to be most
benificial and time saving. All issues I have looked at have been
discovered by other members and have been fully discussed. Thank you.
Action:
______________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 9
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 9)
[damico@eng.sun.com_969679345.13124_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
______________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
______________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have reviewed the objections that Don Cragun has submitted to the
Austin Group in aardvark format and fully support those objections. My
IEEE ballot objection can be resolved by fully resolving Don's
objections.
Action:
For each objection Don submitted to the Austin Group in aardvark
format, perform the action designated in the "Action:" aardvark field.
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 10
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 21)
[keld@rap.dk_969961447.3049_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I refer to our comments to the Austin group.
Action:
If these are resolved satisfactorily, the vote will be changed to "yes
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 11
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 22)
[keld@rap.dk_969961096.3014_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I refer to our comments to the Austin group. If these are resolved
satisfactorily, the vote will be changed to "yes"
Action:
_________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 12
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 12)
[donnte@microsoft.com_969662953.12221_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: all Section: all
Problem:
I have submitted over 100 technical comments directly to the Austin
group, which I support here.
In addition, I attach three general comments about the document (which
are also being sent to the Austing group) (in their format) so that they
are directly visible to the IEEE balloting process. They are in Austin
Group format, and include the suggested remedy inline. (The text is
identical here and in what has been sent to the Austin Group.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 13
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 23)
[don.cragun@eng.sun.com_969895495.25710_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
___________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
Due to the hassle of having to create XML to submit ballot comments
directly to IEEE, I have submitted bulk objections, comments, and
editorial comments directly to the Austin Group aliases for this
ballot.
Action:
This objection can be satisfied by resolving all of the objections I
have submitted to the Austin Group aliases.
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 14
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 24)
[a.josey@xopen.org_969962263.3123_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
The final document should be that approved by the Austin Group
Action:
Synchronize with the Austin Group
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 15
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 29)
[mgh@unican.es_969950064.1808_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I fully support the objections that Frank Prindle has submitted to The
Open Group in aardvark format. My IEEE ballot objections can be
resolved by fully resolving those objections.
Action:
For each objection submitted by Frank Prindle to the Open Group in
aardvark format, perform the action designated in the "Action:" aardvark
field.
_____________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 16
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 33)
[baker@cs.fsu.edu_969225910.19011_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have been monitoring the Austin Group "aardvark" list and am satisfied
that if the issues raised there are corrected the document will be
satisfactory as an IEEE standard.
Action:
______________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 17
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 30)
[gwinn@res.ray.com_970005254.10578_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
______________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
______________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have been been both monitoring the Austin Group "aardvark" list and
submitting comments and will be satisfied when my specific comments
(and objections) are resolved, those of {Mike Gonzales, Karen Gordon,
Jim Oblinger, Frank Prindle, Pierre-Jean Arcos, Francois Riche} are
resolved, as well as the rest of the issues raised in the Austin Group
list.
Action:
See Comment field.
_____________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 18
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 28)
[fpm@hotmail.com_969990929.7634_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have reviewed the objections submitted to the Austin Group in aardvark
format against this document and fully support the majority of those
objections.
Action:
My IEEE ballot objection can be resolved by resolving each and every
objection submitted to the Austin Group.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 19
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 27)
[kgordon@vuse.vanderbilt.edu_969997088.8787_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I fully support the objections which Frank Prindle has submitted to Open
Group in aardvark format.
Action:
As far as my IEEE ballot is concerned, these objections can be resolved
by fully resolving Frank's objections.
________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 20
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 26)
[roger.martin@sun.com_969986992.6874_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0
Problem:
I have reviewed the objections which Don Cragun has submitted to the
Austin Group in aardvark format and fully support those objections. My
IEEE ballot objections can be resolved by fully resolving the objections
and comments which Don has submitted.
Action:
Perform the suggested remedy for each objection raised in the ballot submitted to the Austin Group by Don Cragun.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Objection Enhancement Request Number 21
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 14)
[DST-180] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: all Line: all Section: all
Problem:
This is a huge document. It runs to about 3500 pages, or well over 8
inches in thickness. It is simply impossible to review the document,
particularly in light of the editorial problems, in even the two months
that have been given for it. (That requires careful, thorough reading
at the rate of over 50 pages a day, every day, for the two month
period.) That is not practical, particularly if one has other
responsibilities, and does not contribute to the quality of the standard
in the least.
However, I recognize that it is desireable to complete this work as
quickly as possible, and in practice that most balloters will
procrastinate given a long ballot period.
Related to this is simply fatigue: it is clear based simply on the
number of objections that the commands and utilities volume and the
rationale are not getting good coverage, and that (except for certain
specialty areas such as pthreads) that the front of the System
Interfaces gets more review than the back.
Having a document which is of lesser quality than the documents
it revises is in no-one's interest.
Action:
(I followed roughly the plan outlined below for this ballot cycle,
it did help a bit as I do have better coverage of the Rationale
and Commands and Utilities than I otherwise would.)
Break the document up into "one month" sized chunks, and ballot
them in successive months, in the following order. The whole
document, not just changes, should remain open for comment during
the first such cycle, to assure that the thorough review required
does in fact happen at least once. (To be clear: the ballot period
for one piece would close the day before the ballot period for the
next one appears; the draft of that one piece should have been
distributed electronlically a few days before, so those who prefer
paper copies can get them printed.)
XRAT (which has gotten far too little coverage)
XBD (because it's so basic to everything else)
XCU M-Z
XCU A-M
XSH Q-Z
XSH H-P
XSH A-G
Repeat in this order, but as the number of changes drops, make the
chunks larger, but never less than 3, so that a piece can be in
the editors hands, another in balloting, and the third in ballot
review, continuously. (That is, until the number of changes required
to do the whole document can be reviewed in two weeks or so, the
standard recirculation period.)
This is good for the editors, in that they do not have to produce
all 3500 pages at the same time, and the ballot resolution can
proceed (at least that part that can be done by email) in parallel
with the balloting.) (Since resolution starts earlier (because
there's a shorter delay in preparation of the first piece) and
resolution proceeds in parallel, the end of the cycle appears to
occur at about the same time as it would in a single "big batch".)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Objection Enhancement Request Number 22
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 15)
[DST-181] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: all Line: all Section: all
Problem:
As indicated by the editor, revision bars were not always applied
accurately. In a document of this size, as the balloting cycle
narrows down on the number of open issues, it is desireable to have
shorter ballot cycles. However, that is impossible if the revision
bars are not accurate, because the whole document must be reread
each time. (Not that that's all bad, but...)
Action:
As a matter of policy, if a change is made to the document, the change
is considered open for further balloting (by IEEE narrowing-down rules)
until such time that it is accurately marked with revison bars, plus
one draft. (That is, if an unmarked change is discovered in the
"last" ballot cycle, the unmarked item is still open for objection.
However, once an item has been marked, it has been exposed and the
usual rules apply.)
Action:
Imbedded in the Comment
_____________________________________________________________________________
Objection Enhancement Request Number 23
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 13)
[DST-179] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page: all Line: all Section: all
Problem:
A significant amount of information from the base documents (the
ISO/IEEE standards of 1990-1999) has been lost editorially in the
current draft. I have balloted on this issue consistently that an
editorial pass needs to be made to restore this material, and I have
provided specific instances for correction as I find them. However, the
specific task of restoring the document's content (that was not
intentionally changed as authorized by the PAR) has not been performed.
Consequently, I believe that the PAR has not been met.
The loss takes many forms, but two deserve specific mention: *
Rationale, introductory material, and the like have been dropped.
Specifically observed to be missing in this draft is the list of
omitted Commands and why they were omitted, and the 1003.1
introduction that contains the critical "Interface, not
Implementation" discussion.
* Many of the normative "shall" statements were converted to active
verbs, losing their normative force. POSIX has always been weak in
this regard, and this regression is only to the detriment of the
standard.
Before proceeding further with the formal ballot process, the editorial
problems need to be fixed.
Action:
Restore all missing text and proper normative phrasing of requirements.
Attemt to (within the constraints of the new, and truly improved, order)
restore the other editorial strengths of the the originals.
________________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 24
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 8)
[james.bottomley@steeleye.com_969553192.29887_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
________________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 950 Line: 14955 Section: fsync
Problem:
There should be some primitive for synchronising a directory as well as
a file. A large number of applications write data to a temporary file,
commit the data and rename the temporary file over the original and
would now like to commit the rename.
Although nothing in the draft rules out use of fsync() for this, fsync()
should explictly permit the passing of a file descriptor of a directory
(which must be read only) and should commit all cached changes
associated with that directory.
Action:
On line 14957 change "...associated with the file described..." to
"...associated with the file or directory described..."
After line 14963 (in DESCRIPTION) add the following note: "Note: the
file descriptor may be open read only if it indicates a directory"
On line 14979 change "...modifications to a file to be..." to
"...modifications to a file or directory to be..."
On line 14995 change "...for at least some files that can..." to "...for
at least some files or directories that can..."
________________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 25
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 6)
[james.bottomley@steeleye.com_969553357.29917_ieee]Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
________________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 950 Line: 14957 Section: fsync
Problem:
The term "description" is wrong.
Action:
On lines 14956-14957 change "...for the open file description named
by..." to "...for the open file descriptor named by..."
____________________________________________________________________________________
objection Enhancement Request Number 26
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 31)
[c.harding@opengroup.org_969467195.19020_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 1013 Line: 17021-17171 Section: unk
Problem:
There is overlap in functionality between
getipnodebyname()/getipnodebyaddr() and getnameinfo()/getaddreinfo().
And there are some circumstances in which getipnodebyname() and
getipnodebyaddr() can not be used.
Action:
The draft should detail the circumstances in which these functions
should and should not be used in their respective Application Usage
sections, and should cross-refer to each other in their respective "See
Also" sections.
An acceptable alternative would be to remove getipnodebyname() and
getipnodebyaddr().
_________________________________________________________________________________
editorial Enhancement Request Number 27
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 11)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886157.24196_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3309 Line: 4 Section: A
Problem:
Only the "Open Group" is listed as author on this and other part
title-pages.
Action:
Should the IEEE Standard Association also be listed?
_________________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 28
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 17)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969885904.24157_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3322 Line: 430 Section: A.3
Problem:
Incorrect characterisation of ASCII as a "1-bit character set".
Action:
Change "1-bit" to "1-byte".
_________________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 29
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 19)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969885984.24168_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3358 Line: 1862 Section: A.7.3.5
Problem:
The example dates given on this and the following line are shown in the
U.S. specific form (m/d/y). This may be confusing for e.g. European
readers.
Action:
Change "7/4/1776" to "the fourth of July in the year 1776", and (on line
1863) "7/14/1789" to "The fourteenth of July in the year 1789". Also, is
it appropriate to give, as examples, dates that precede the Epoch?
_________________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 30
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 32)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886067.24185_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3375 Line: 2505 Section: A.12.1
Problem:
The statement that the command on line 2504 would be a syntax error
seems too strong. Section 12.2 in the Base Definitions says (line 7465)
that ranges greater than the signed 31-bit values are allowed, so an
implementation could syntactically accept the option value 3000000000,
yet reject it on semantic grounds.
Action:
Change "would be a syntax error" to "could be a syntax error".
_________________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 31
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 10)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886439.24229_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3405 Line: 3661 Section: B.2.8
Problem:
The description of Ada rendez-vous is out of date. The current Ada
standard includes priority queuing.
Action:
Delete the sentence containing the word "Ada".
_________________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 32
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 25)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886587.24255_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3418 Line: 4257 Section: B.2.8.3
Problem:
Fortran is described as a language without pointers; I believe this is
out of date with the current Fortran standard.
Action:
Delete mention of Fortran and just say "languages with pointer types".
_________________________________________________________________________________
comment Enhancement Request Number 33
IEEE_Ballot BUG in P1003.1/D4 Revision (rdvk# 16)
[Niklas.Holsti@ssf.fi_969886738.24272_ieee] Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:53:26 -0400 (EDT)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____
Rationale for rejected or partial changes:
_________________________________________________________________________________
Page: 3419 Line: 4311 Section: B.2.8.3
Problem:
A lower-level standard (ANSI Ada) is referred to, where a higher-level
standard exists (ISO Ada).
Action:
Change "ANSI Ada" to "ISO Ada".